scm-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of folder objects and mentions the container hierarchy purpose, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The description adds some context about folder purpose but lacks operational transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The three sentences each serve distinct purposes: stating the action, describing the return value, explaining folder purpose, and documenting the parameter. There's minimal waste, though the parameter documentation could be more integrated with the main description flow.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with one optional parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance that would make it more complete for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description provides meaningful semantic information about the single parameter (tsg_id) that goes beyond the schema's minimal coverage (0%). It explains that tsg_id is optional, can be an ID or named alias like 'PROD', and defaults to SCM_TSG_ID. This compensates well for the schema's lack of description, though it doesn't fully explain what SCM_TSG_ID represents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('folders in Strata Cloud Manager'), and explains that folders form a container hierarchy for firewall configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling list tools (e.g., scm_list_addresses, scm_list_security_rules) beyond the resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for browsing folder structure vs. getting specific folder details with scm_get_folder) or any prerequisites beyond the optional tsg_id parameter.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.